Introduction

Plato was the son of noble parents and was born in 427 B.C. He was highly influenced by Socrates. He received his education from his master, Socrates, and later went on a journey to observe the ways of life of people and social and political structures. He also established an institution named the Academy or Gymnasium. He gave various theories on the most important subjects and wrote the famous “The Republic.” While interpreting the nature of justice, he followed the dialectic method. In this method, a person talks with an expert and then tries to understand his ideas, assumptions, and concepts so that he can come to a conclusion and form his own concepts or theories. Plato went on a journey to understand the ways of life of people by conversing with them and understanding their thoughts. The theory given by Plato is also called the theory of social justice because Plato pointed out that the state was a means for the whole of society. Before giving his own theory, Plato evaluated some theories on justice prevalent during his time. 

Evaluation of theories by Plato

Plato evaluated certain theories of his time on justice and found loopholes in each, and subsequently presented his ideas. The theories are:

Traditionalism

In the Republic, traditional views about justice are expressed by the father son duo of Cephalus and Polemarchus. When Socrates asked Cephalus about his views on justice, he said that justice consisted in speaking the truth, being honest and paying back one’s debt. Socrates, however, pointed towards some inconsistencies in his definition. If a friend who lent his weapon to us goes mad, it would not be justice if we return the weapon back to him. He also pointed out that in some cases, being honest and speaking the truth may do more harm than good and it is better to conceal truth in such cases. When Cephalus gave up his argument, his son, Polemarchus carried it forward by saying that justice was giving each man his due, meaning harming your enemies and helping your friends. Socrates again points to the shortcomings of this definition. He says that helping friends may involve immoral acts like stealing or telling a lie. One may also misjudge his friends and enemies and the rule of doing good to friends and harm to enemies may not apply. Hurting someone makes the doer less just or less excellent while justice is about excellence. 

Radicalism

This theory was supported by the Sophists, and according to the theory, justice is in the interest of the stronger. One should act as per his capacity and strength and achieve what is possible. It also meant that since the state is the strongest of will, whatever is done by the state is just, and thus, justice is the will of the ruler. One who has power or authority can make justice work according to their whims. Plato argued that:

• This theory cannot explain the different behaviors and activities of different rulers in different times and the concept of  justice varied from place to place. 
• It does not give any universal idea of justice. 
• It is not a rational principle.  
• It cannot guide a person who wants to achieve justice in his own way. 

Pragmatism 

Glaucon gave this theory, followed by the theory of Social Contract by Hobbes and Rousseau. This theory states that justice is the child of fear and born out of tradition. The people who suffered injustice at the hands of strong people decided as a result of the social contract that they would never do injustice nor tolerate it. For example, punishing a criminal will create fear in his mind and thus, in this way justice will be served to the sufferer. Also, a victim who suffered a loss will probably not commit the crime as he suffered the pain himself. However, Plato opposed this theory by saying that any contract between people is tacit and implied and that if a law is obligatory, one accepts it because it is not imposed by force. Also, people were under the misconception that the state resulted from a social contract between the ruler and the general public.

Rationalism 

Justice, as seen by Socrates, is an art. The ruler tries to bring justice by removing the defects from the general public. Since Plato was highly influenced by Socrates and his ideas, he gave the ‘rule of king’ for achieving the ideal of republic. What Socrates tried to say is that not everyone can rule or serve justice. One who knows how to deal with the interests of the people and works for their benefit in a welfare state can be a ruler. 

Plato’s Theory of Justice

After examining the prevailing conceptions of justice, Plato gives his theory of justice. Justice was one of the four cardinal Greek virtues – other three being wisdom or prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or self-control. Greek philosophers defined justice as virtue in action. They always conceptualised justice in terms of harmony and order, whether they used it for an individual, state or the universe. Greeks before Socrates used to describe the cosmos, which means order as just. The idea of harmony and order is clearly visible in the contemporary usage of justice as fairness. In Greek language, the word for justice is ‘Dikaiosyne’ which means righteousness or just. Plato’s justice was based on morality and ethics, not on legal basis. It was reflected in doing one’s duty and contributing to the society as per an individual’s capabilities.

Plato believed in the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge and knowledge can eradicate political ills and injustice. For Plato, the ideal state possessed the four cardinal virtues. Wisdom would prevail due to knowledgeable rulers while courage would be present through brave warriors. There would be self-control due to the harmony in society following a common understanding pertaining to who would be the ruler and lastly, justice would prevail as everyone would do their duty for which they are best suited and not interfere in other people’s work. Plato saw the state as an ideal while justice was its reality. Sabine says that the theory of state in the Republic results in the conception of justice. He also said that justice for Plato is a bond that holds the society together. Plato’s idea of justice came from his vision of the political community and justice serves common interest. Even a den of thieves would need principles of justice to survive. Every state needs principles of justice as its foundation. The individuals in a state should be convinced that their state is a just state and they must follow the principles of justice of their state. Justice is the greatest good that people can attain as individuals and as members of a larger political community.

Three Classes and Three Souls

Plato starts his discussion on justice in a state by saying that the state is natural as no one is self-sufficient and human beings require each other for survival. Plato says that self-sufficiency consists in maintaining division of labour in a state. A successful political community has to perform three functions – production, protection (defence) and statesmanship (ruling). Hence, justice would consist in fulfilling these three activities based on functional specialisation. It would ensure that justice prevails as not only the common interest would be served but individual happiness and well-being is also served since there is harmony in what individuals do, what they get and their individual psyches. Based on functional specialisation, Plato gives three types of classes in a state (also called the three classes and three souls, an idea Plato borrowed from Pythagoras).

• Rulers: Every state would need rulers to rule with a function of making policy decisions.
• Auxiliaries: This is the class of warriors with a military function and they are part of the guardians.
• Artisans: This class has to perform economic function and includes all those who produce goods and perform socially necessary services, for ex. traders, farmers etc.

Each class exhibits certain virtues. The ruling class must have the virtue of wisdom and must have knowledge of properly ruling the state as a whole. Since the auxiliary class has to defend the state, they should possess the virtue of courage. The artisans must show temperance or self-control to curb their passions. They should understand that they have to perform an economic function in the state and possession of wealth or status should not prompt them to take over other functions like rulership; which they are not equipped to handle.

The division of labour is also a division of virtue in Plato’s ideal state. Those who have a superior role in division of labour also have superior degree of virtue. Since the rulers have knowledge or wisdom due to the rigorous education process, they have complete virtue while the other two classes have incomplete virtue. They have knowledge of ideas like justice, beauty, courage and truth and other moral attributes which Plato called Forms. According to Plato, each entity that exists in our world is an imperfect copy of the Form of that thing that exists in a transcendental realm. Only the rulers with wisdom can see these Forms and only they can ensure justice matches its Form as much as possible. For Plato, education was a necessary tool for moral reform to transform human soul. It would facilitate performance of one’s social functions and in attaining fulfilment. Rousseau regarded Plato’s Republic as the finest treatise ever written on education. Plato’s system of education combined best elements from Athens and Sparta’s education models. From Athens, he picked up creativity, excellence and individual training while from Sparta; Plato drew the feature of civic training.

Plato’s conception of justice could be called distributive as it stood for giving his due to an individual like skills and training while in return, the individual would perform his duty with responsibility. To substantiate his argument about differences in individual capabilities, Plato used a ‘noble lie’ through the myth of the metals which would be uttered by the rulers. The myth would propagate that as children of earth, all were born with some metallic component in their bodies. The rulers were born with components of gold in their bodies, auxiliaries with silver while the artisans had parts of brass in their bodies. This noble lie served two purposes. All people would believe that they were part of a bigger family with other members being their brothers. Secondly, all would accept their station in life as naturally suited to qualities they were born with and hence, would sustain functional specialisation. There was an elaborate system to select rulers in Plato’s state and any child, irrespective of sex and class could be a ruler if he or she exhibited capabilities to learn philosophical truths. Plato stood for a society based on merit not birth. He did not believe that talent and skill could be passed on from one generation to the other. 

Communist Principles

Plato wanted to remove objects of desire from the ruling class. He argued that it was easy for an individual to go against the common interest for the sake of his family. Hence, Plato abolished private property and family for the rulers as it encouraged nepotism, favouritism, factionalism and other corrupt practices. Plato wanted the rulers to promote common good, not their personal interests. He proposed that the rulers would live together in common, like soldiers in a barrack. Their basic needs for simple food and clothing had to be met by the artisans. Mating would be regulated to ensure a future pool of rulers, but it would take place outside any family structure. Children would be held in common and they would not know their real parents and would identify the state as their family. There would be nurseries maintained by state to take care of the children. Plato’s communism applies to the ruling elite and not the majority of population.

Communism of Plato and Marx: A Comparison

There is a big time gap between Plato and Marx and stark differences in socioeconomic and political environment in which they gave their ideas on communism. Plato advocated an ascetic communism to remove objects of desire from the ruling class, not meant to distribute them more equitably. It was also called koinonia, meaning fellowship or communion in Greek. There are a number of differences between the two. Ernest Barker called Plato’s communism as aristocratic and half communism, as it applied only to the ruling class while Marx’s communism was universal in nature. Plato’s communism was applicable to property and family while that of Marx was concerned with means of production. Communism was introduced by Marx as a weapon to destroy class distinctions and create a classless and stateless society. On the other hand, Plato introduced communism to maintain class hierarchy to maintain harmony in the state.

Justice at Individual and State Level

Plato argued that in a just individual, the philosophic element (wisdom) rules his soul. An individual’s soul should be in harmony and his reason, spirit and appetite should be in right relationship with each other so that he does not cross Plato: Justice his boundaries. A just individual does his own job and does not interfere in matters of others. He would take only his share and would not claim that of the other. Socrates said that justice consists in minding your own business and not interfering with other people. In an unjust person, the division of labour in the soul or psyche has broken down and his passions and desires begin to rule his soul than reason. At the state level, justice would exist when each class maintains its appropriate position in society and ensures harmony between different virtues in a state. Plato, however, left one aspect unsolved. He insisted that the artisans would willingly subordinate themselves to the ruling class, but he was uncertain as to how long this subordination would last. He has even recommended the use of force and rhetorical persuasion leading to control and monitoring. This raised concerns whether the ideal state would be a happy one as well. Towards the end of the Republic, Plato has highlighted the contrast between misery of an unjust life and happiness of just life. He has discussed the decline of the ideal state arguing that the state would disintegrate as it is a human institution which is an imperfect representation of an ultimate reality. Change is in the nature of this sensory world and the ideal state is no exception. The downfall of the state begins with the ruling class which gets corrupted by attraction of property and desire starts to rule wisdom and reason. They would enslave the citizens and the new virtue would be courage. Honour would be held above knowledge and this new type of regime would be called Timocracy, a state ruled by the auxiliaries. Timocracy would give way to oligarchy or the rule of a few rich and oligarchy would make way for democracy, rule by many. Plato emphasised that human beings are a product of their social environment and they will be corrupted if the social order is corrupted. 

Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Justice

• Plato laid more emphasis on the duties rather than the rights enjoyed by the people in a society. Rights keep the society united and bring solidarity among the people. Thus, both rights and duties are important and interconnected in a state. 
• He gave enormous powers to the philosopher-king but failed to realize the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus, even the wisest king can become corrupt if given absolute powers. 
• He divided society on the basis of tendencies of the personality. But heredity is not solely responsible for personality traits. As a result, he laid the foundation of such a system of education in the society which develops one-sided personalities and does not give any importance to the environment which is yet another important feature responsible for the personality of a person. 
• The theory given by Plato lays the foundation for facism according to which each citizen is expected to show loyalty towards the state. On the other hand, modern thinkers suggest that the state must not be given absolute powers which might also curb the rights and freedom of people in a society. 
• He considered guardians above law. What Plato calls justice is the dictate of guardians in the state. His theory does not provide a reasonable basis for law and justice cannot be dependent on personal will and conscience. He also neglected to differentiate between moral and legal obligations. 
• His concept of justice is passive and cannot form a basis for jural regulation. He does not provide any solution if there is any conflict between the desire and duty or duties and rights. 
• He laid too much stress on the unity of state and thus, gave absurd ideas of communism of women and abolition of marriage and family. 

Influence of Socrates on Plato

Socrates was the teacher and master of Plato. His image never faded from the mind of Plato and was highly influenced by his master, so much so that it is reflected in his work. The ideas of Socrates can be easily determined by the ideas of Plato and his thinking. 

Virtue is knowledge

Socrates considered virtue and knowledge synonymous with each other. According to him, if knowledge has no impact on the conduct of a person, it is useless and meaningless. On the ideas of Socrates, Plato developed his concept of a philosopher-king in the Republic. Thus, both Plato and Socrates do not differentiate between ethics and politics. 

Theory of reality

Socrates believed that the virtue of a thing is not in its existence but in its fulfillment. On this basis, Plato gave the idea that the world of ideas is more real than the world of things. 

Theory of knowledge

Socrates divided knowledge into 2 types: casual and true knowledge. The latter is self-knowledge and is concerned with the conduct and character of an individual and influences the total personality of an individual. 

Philosophical method

Socrates invented the question-answer method for philosophical discussion, which was followed by Plato to prepare his dialogues. With this method, a person asks questions to thinkers and analyzes their thought processes, and then comes to a conclusion with the help of constructive criticism. 

Art of government

Socrates considered the ruler as a philosopher. However, this was different from what the Sophists believed. 

• According to the Sophists, the world is mechanical, but for Scorates it is purposeful. 
• Sophists believed that goodness is an art and can be achieved by specialized knowledge but Socrates considered it an innate power of man. 
• The theory of knowledge presented by Socrates is very much different from what Sophists gave. 
• The Sophists considered that social rules are not based upon natural law and are man-made, while Socrates kept traditional laws above man. 

These ideas of Socrates highly influenced Plato, so much that his work entirely revolves around the thinking and teachings of his master, Socrates. 

Analysis of Plato’s Theory of Justice

Plato was first a philosopher and then a political thinker. His political philosophy is mostly based on social philosophy. However, he does not provide any reasonable and just basis for the law in the state. He mainly connects his theory with morality rather than legality. He believed that justice could be achieved if all the people belonging to different social strata fulfilled their roles and duties in society. However, the society Plato talked about is not legal as it is not based upon the legal rights of individuals. Justice, according to him, guides men in the fulfillment of their duties. The concept is closely related to the self-control of an individual. 

This theory does not find its existence in the present society. Society today is driven by legal rights and duties. People are aware of their power, rights, and duties. Countries mostly follow the democratic system of government where the real power vests with the citizens to choose their representatives who form the government. The President, or the ruler, in the words of Plato, is not given absolute power nor is he an expert in philosophy. There is a system of checks and balances in the society given by the Constitution of each country which is the supreme law of the land. The idea of justice as given by Plato is very much different from what is observed in the present society. 

There are laws for each and every field and one who commits an offence by doing something prohibited by law is punished by the state according to the law and procedure are given in the statutes and Constitution. The citizens of a state enjoy fundamental rights which are not absolute and have reasonable restrictions. Unlike the classification of people given by Plato, there is no such classification in society based on personality traits or tendencies. Every person can do any work or choose any occupation. Thus, the idea and concept of justice given by Plato no longer exist in society and has become obsolete. 

Conclusion 

It can be concluded that Plato was highly influenced by his teacher, Socrates, which is visible in his work. He gave various theories on various subject matters. His theory of justice is based upon his own imagination of an ideal body politic or state, which is utopian and hard to find in the real world. Thus, when compared with today’s society, his idea of justice does not prevail. 

Aristotle’s theory of origin of state, its nature and the end rests on several premises. Firstly, the origin of state depends on the triangular nature of the human soul. From this theory, he inferred that man is both rational and irrational and it is his purpose to follow the former in preference to the latter. This is in turn related to the theory of causes—the final cause being the end of the essential form, which a thing attains.

The second premise is Aristotle’s theory of happiness, which he calls the quality of the soul that could be achieved only in the State. Thirdly, Aristotle never believed in any need to distinguish between the state and the society. According to him, these two institutions are indistinguishable and complementary to each other.

Fourthly, the state is not merely the convenient machinery that raises a man above his animal wants and sets him free to follow his own lights; it is itself his end or at least a part of it. State is not merely an instrument through which the individual can achieve specific form of human goodness within the compass of his earthly life, but it is the final form which man could attain.

The state, in fact, is mere aggregate of individuals. It is not based on an artificial device. It is not a contract. It is natural, in other words, inherent in man’s nature, that is, reason and reason expressed through language. Language, in turn, is a medium of communication.

Thus, man is gregarious in nature. He is born in a society, and it is only here that he ever survives. Society is also natural because it is the consummation of mans highest nature. If there is greater cooperation between the state and the individuals, and they are mutu­ally complementary to each other, then the freedom of individual is in tandem with the law of the region, law is an instrument of self-realization, the standard of justice.

Aristotle believed that through state and the laws, man attains his highest virtue and perfection and becomes a citizen, has a specific virtue and becomes an aristocrat capable of sharing in public activity and performing public duties.

The end of the state according to Aristotle includes, aim at all lesser ends, the family or the village. These two are too small to provide a man with everything he needs for a good life. This is the royal gateway of excellence.

However, everybody cannot attain this excellence. For this purpose, Aristotle excluded artisans, from citizenship of his ideal state on the grounds that they are debarred by their occupations from the characteristics excellence of man. It is for this reason that Aristotle considers slavery as natural and women as mere matter. They also achieve what they are capable of achieving only within the state. This, in brief, is Aristotle’s notion about origin, nature and end of state.

Origin of State

According to Aristotle, life manifests through several forms—vegetation, animals and men. The vegetative soul performs only two functions, viz., nutrition and growth. As regards the animal, it can walk, resist and fight; while man can think. This division is evolutionary in nature.

The animal soul is vegetative soul and passion; the human soul, on the other hand, is vegetative soul (appetite) coupled with the animal soul (passion) and reason. These principles are followed even in the society. The vegetative soul mani­fests in the family, the animal soul in the village and the human soul in the state. Just as the human soul retains the attributes of the vegetative as well as the animal soul; the state retains family and villages. Thus, family expands into villages and villages into state.

Further, as life becomes good with the emergence of the human soul, the state continues to grow from family through the village for the sake of good life. Thus, according to Aristotle, state comes into existence for the sake of life, it continues for the sake of good life.

The state, according to him, is an organism. The following example explains the concept of state as an organism. Hand is a part of the human body, and if the body is destroyed, there is nothing called a hand. A hand, so to say, is recognized by its functions or end or purpose, that is, to grasp things.

This function can be performed only if it is a part of the human body. Similarly, individuals in the state are like hands of the body. The purpose of these individuals is to lead a good life and this is not possible unless they are a part of the state. To make the state healthy, individuals must also be healthy.

It is for this reason that Aristotle looks upon state as the supreme manifestation of man’s essential nature. He once stated that, he who is unable to live in a society, or who has no need because he is self-sufficient must be either a beast or God.

Aristotle also believed that a man when perfected is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all. Thus, a man in a state without law and justice, according to Aristotle, is the worst of all animals. Law is the breath of the state and the courts of justice are the lungs and nostrils. The state according to Aristotle is not a mere society of exchange of goods and prevention of crime, but the one that ensures a happy and honorable life to individuals in the state.

In the end, state, according to Aristotle, is a perfect community that has reached a stage of self-sufficiency. It is also economically self-sufficient. He used the term ‘autarkeia’, which means self-sufficiency. This term, in a broader sense, refers to all- round independence in both ethical and psychic terms.

This means that the individuals involvement in public affairs, a sense of participation that prevents alienation. The concept of self-sufficiency is against the thesis of alienated man. It is by participating in the affairs of the state or the polis that a man can become self-sufficient and this is the end of the state.

Concept of an Ideal State

Aristotle always strived to attain an ideal state. According to him, in every state there are three classes, viz., the very rich, the very poor and the middle class (the mean). Those who are rich excel in strength, beauty; birth or wealth and they grow arrogant, violent and criminal.

The poor, on the other hand, are ugly, weak and often become victims of jealousies, intriguing, rogues and petty rascals. While the former do not obey laws, the latter tend to break the laws. The government, therefore, by the former would be despotic and that formed by the latter would be despicable. In either situation, the state remains divided by conflicts, bitterness, jealousies and frictions.

The state can never be one as there is an eternal war with each other. So, Aristotle suggested that the best way is to follow the law of the golden mean. In other words, governments must be run by middle class citizens who favour neither class. They neither covet not plot but only command acceptance for their power is transformed into authority.

Therefore, Aristotle suggested that the legislators must always ensure the association of the middle class with the government. If it is numerically stronger than the other two classes, then it is definitely a source of stability. Aristotle opined that the continuous rule by either the rich or the poor is worst calamity, that can ever happen to a state and for this reason; he supported the rule of middle class, as the best rule—it is the golden mean.

Aristotle believed that middle class rule ensures not only stability but also liberty and equality. Liberty is not necessarily doing what one likes to do, but it is also to live by the rule of the constitution. Liberty also refers to the ability to rule as well as be ruled. This is justice. Thus, liberty, according to Aristotle, is based on justice, which is distributive, and rests on the basis of proportionate equality.

Elements of an Ideal State

Aristotle strongly believed that the best form of government is the one headed by the middle class. And for this form of government to function efficiently, there is a need for coordination between three elements as it is this relation that determines the nature and efficiency of the government.

These three elements are as follows:

1. The deliberative (legislature)
2. The magistracy (executive)
3. The judicial

Aristotle suggested that those who deliberate or those who make laws, must be elected by votes by all the members of the different classes. As far as the magistracy or the executive is concerned, he recommended that some should be elected out of all and some out of some, or again some by vote and others by lot.

According to Aristotle, this mixed form of government is the best. Similarly, as regards the judicial system, Aristotle suggested that some judges should be recruited from all classes and some courts should represent only a specific class.

In other words, Aristotle made it very clear that golden mean is the best state. Monarchy though happens to be the best form from a theoretical perspective, it is not possible, because one man absolutely virtuous and perfect will be God and untraceable. Tyranny is a perversion and the worst form of government and a tyrant is a monster and is unjust to everyone.

Further, a tyrant is never virtuous and he is only powerful. Aristocracy though appears to be practically the best form of government as it is the rule of capable, the excellent and the informed, it lacks an economic base. In no time, it degenerates into oligarchy and political office is placed at the disposal of the highest bidder. This situation in all probability make the state avaricious and over a period of time citizens follow the example set by the rulers.

The masses would be strengthened and over a short period, establish their rule. Such a government is ruled by crowd and is based on the false assumption of equality, that is, those who are equal in one respect are equal in all respects, because men are equally free and they claim to be absolutely equal. Therefore, such a government is contrary to good life.

Aristotle was also not in favor of democracy. He was actually in favors of a mix of aristocracy and democracy as it would denote a system wherein there is a combination of excellence in number, ability and efficiency with responsibility. Polity or constitu­tional republic is the outcome of such a happy fusion.

The economic basis of such a gov­ernment is found in the middle class who are considered to be the natural elements of the state. They ensure security and stability that makes any polity work efficiently. Such a state is certainly more democratic as it is open to all and quite aristocratic too because anybody who is not able, trained, educated and fully prepared for the art of governance can be admitted to any public office of importance.

Necessary Conditions for an Ideal State

According to Aristotle, there are certain material conditions that are necessary to make an ideal state.

These conditions can be described as follows:

Population

Aristotle was of the opinion that just as good citizens are identifiable, a state also needs an identity or, in other words, certain distinct features to it like the rivers, mountains, etc. He was also of the view that the population of the state must be neither too large nor too small. It should be just enough for achieving a life of self- sufficiency. In order to ensure that the population does not exceed, he stated that the rate of reproduction must be fixed and infertility must be encouraged among married couples.

These restrictions are important because, excessive population is likely to lead to poverty, which reduces into civic dissension and wrongdoing. Aristotle linked this with the regulation of property without which the regulation of the population is meaningless.

He strongly stated that as the number of children increases in the family, there are greater chances of discomforts and eventually poverty. It is, therefore, necessary that population be checked. Aristotle was not in favor of infant mortality as a means to check population growth. He, however, approved of prevention of growth of deformed children.

If a family happens to exceed the fixed size, then Aristotle suggested that birth control measures have to be initiated by the state. According to him, unlimited population not only brings economic ruin, but also leads to democracy whose backbone is the mass of people.

As regards the quality of population, he compared the population of Greeks to that of the Europeans and the Asians. He believed that Europeans have high spirits but less intelligence and skills, while Asians are highly skilled and intelligent but lack spirit. The Greeks, in the meanwhile, are a blend of the two, and this combination is the best for the ideal state for it induces freedom and highest political development.

Territory

In Aristotle’s view, the size of the territory must also be fixed like that of the population. The territory should enable a citizen to live a life of leisure, combining temperance and liberality. The citizens should be able to take it in a single view and be able to defend it, plan and relate properly to the neighbours.

He also stated that the state must have such a geographical location that it has all the advantages of being near to the sea. The state climate must be suitable to grow more kinds of fruits and other food crops and also timber and many other products. Thus, Aristotle laid down certain rules that would make the state self-sufficient, united, viable, economically and commercially prosperous, and militarily secure.

Social Structure

Aristotle perceived a well-knit social structure that coordinates all the integral parts and with necessary conditions. The term ‘integral part’ refers to citizens, artisans, slaves and women and they are all necessary conditions.

The objective of a social structure in an ideal state is to provide the services of food and agriculture, tools, arts and crafts, arms and defense, property and land ownership, service of gods and public worship, political deliberations and settlement of disputes. Thus, there are a number of classes in a state like farmers, artisans, soldiers, traders, priests and the states­men and others.

Aristotle further classified the works to be undertaken by the young, middle aged and old people in a society. For instance, defense, public worship and political deliberations are considered ideal and legitimate, and defending the society is the responsibility of young men, politics is the responsibility of the middle aged, and public worship to the old and the aged. This classification of work was made to provide leisure in one life at some time or the other, and also a chance to interact with the other three classes.

The remaining services like property, trade and land ownership should be assigned to the entire body of full citizens. By this categorization of classes, the state is able to attain the greatest happiness. He also expressed that land should not be entirely owned in common—some should be publicly owned and some privately owned.

The private owners may have two plots—one nears the polis and other at the frontier. Finally, the slaves or the barbarian serfs must cultivate the land. Ownership of the land should be vested in the soldiers and the statesmen.

Outline of the State

According to Aristotle, by taking into consideration the health, defense, convenience of political activities and beauty of a state, it needs to be carefully planned. Aristotle stated that the citadel suits oligarchies and monarchies, and a level plain suits democracy. As far as the health of the state is concerned, Aristotle was of the opinion that if there is good water supply then everything else would be fine. He believed that states, which are on the slopes towards the east and get winds from the quarter, would be the healthiest.

A large and bountiful of reservoir of rainwater is an added advantage to any state. As regards the defense, it should be planned in such a fashion that it would be easy for the inhabitants to move all over the territory, but difficult for the enemies to approach. Aristotle suggested that state should be fortified and the walls must be maintained properly both in terms of beauty as well as safety. Finally, public space must be allotted for recreation and merchandise.

Platonic Communism and Modern Communism differ substantially in their goals, philosophical foundations, and methods, though both aspire to create societies that minimize inequality. Platonic Communism stems from Plato’s philosophical vision in The Republic (around 375 BCE), where he outlines a social structure for an idealized city-state called Kallipolis. In this society, Plato envisions the abolition of private property and family structures—but only for the ruling class, or “Guardians.” This class would be responsible for governing, with their needs provided for by the rest of society to prevent corruption and self-interest. Plato’s aim was a society where Guardians are focused on the common good, unaffected by personal wealth or familial loyalty. This model is elitist and prescriptive, intended for a small, specialized group rather than society as a whole. Plato believed that only philosopher-kings, trained rigorously in virtue and wisdom, could wield power without corruption, making Platonic Communism more of a moral and educational project than an economic one.

In contrast, Modern Communism, as formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 19th century, advocates for a classless, stateless society where all private property and wealth are collectively owned by the working class. This vision, based on historical materialism and economic critique, arose in response to the harsh conditions of industrial capitalism. Marx saw the root of inequality in the exploitation of labor and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the capitalist bourgeoisie. The end goal is the abolition of all class distinctions and, ultimately, the state itself, which Marx believed would become unnecessary once exploitation was eliminated. Unlike Platonic Communism, which was primarily focused on the ruling elite’s disinterest in wealth, Modern Communism seeks to redistribute power to the proletariat or working class, creating a society without inherent inequalities between social groups. This makes Modern Communism a revolutionary movement aimed at restructuring the entire economic system, rather than a moral or philosophical restructuring.

Another key distinction is that Plato’s Communism was primarily theoretical and did not propose any practical plan for a large-scale implementation. It is deeply idealistic, with a focus on justice as defined by Plato’s notion of “each person doing what they are best suited for.” Meanwhile, Modern Communism is explicitly political and action-oriented; Marx and Engels proposed a pathway for transition, which they argued would occur through class struggle and revolution. They saw the state as a tool of oppression that the proletariat must overthrow, leading to the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional phase toward a stateless, classless society.

The view of human nature in each philosophy is also markedly different. Plato viewed most people as unsuited to rule, needing direction from a trained, wise elite. In contrast, Marx viewed all workers as possessing an innate potential for solidarity and agency in overthrowing the capitalist system, believing that collective ownership and shared control over production would naturally eliminate power imbalances. This foundational difference shapes the scope and method of each ideology. Platonic Communism is limited to the moral discipline of the ruling class, while Modern Communism entails a comprehensive restructuring of society’s economic and social systems for universal equality.

In summary, Platonic Communism is philosophical and moral, aimed at ensuring the ruling class is incorruptible through abstention from property and family bonds. Modern Communism, on the other hand, is economic, revolutionary, and egalitarian, targeting the abolition of all classes and envisioning a society where workers have collective control. While both share an aspiration to limit the power of wealth, their methods, scope, and underlying assumptions about society differ vastly, reflecting their respective historical and ideological contexts.

Comparison of Platonic Communism and Modern Communism:

Aristotle’s views on the end (or purpose) of the state are central to his political philosophy, as outlined in his seminal work, Politics. Unlike some modern theories, Aristotle’s conception of the state was not merely as a tool for social organization or protection against external threats; rather, he viewed the state as a natural and necessary institution for achieving the highest form of human life. For Aristotle, the end, or ultimate purpose, of the state was to create conditions that enable individuals to achieve eudaimonia, or flourishing—a state of moral and intellectual excellence that he saw as the ultimate human good.

Aristotle begins his examination of the state with the concept of natural communities. He observes that human beings are inherently social creatures, evolving from smaller associations, such as families and villages, which ultimately coalesce to form a larger political community, the polis or city-state. Unlike Plato, who viewed the state as an artificial construct, Aristotle argued that the state exists by nature because it is the culmination of human social organization. In his famous statement that “man is by nature a political animal,” Aristotle emphasized that humans reach their fullest potential only within the political community. He argued that people are driven not only by basic needs but also by a desire for a good and virtuous life, which is possible only within the context of a well-ordered state.

The primary end of the state, according to Aristotle, is thus to foster virtue and moral development among its citizens. He believed that the state’s role extended far beyond ensuring security or managing resources; it was a vehicle for promoting justice and ethical conduct. For Aristotle, the concept of justice was integral to the state’s purpose. Justice, as he defined it, was about each individual receiving what is due and contributing to the common good. A just state, therefore, is one that enables all individuals to live virtuously by supporting a balanced social structure and encouraging the development of ethical character among its citizens.

Aristotle distinguished between different types of constitutions based on whether they served the common good or the rulers’ self-interest. In his categorization, he classified monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as “correct” forms of government that aim toward the common good. On the other hand, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (understood here as mob rule) were “deviant” forms, as they focus on the interests of a few rather than the welfare of all. Aristotle’s ideal state would be governed by polity, a mixed constitution blending elements of democracy and oligarchy, which he saw as best able to achieve a balance between the needs of the many and the leadership of the virtuous few. This ideal government would allow citizens to develop and exercise civic virtues, such as courage, temperance, and justice, which contribute not only to individual flourishing but also to the stability and harmony of the state itself.

Aristotle’s conception of the state also includes a strong emphasis on education and civic participation. He argued that a well-functioning state requires active and virtuous citizens who understand and participate in governance. Aristotle believed that it was the duty of the state to educate citizens in virtue, providing them with the moral and intellectual tools necessary to govern themselves and contribute to the common good. He saw the state as a community of individuals whose ultimate purpose was to lead a good life, not merely to survive or accumulate wealth. This view reflects Aristotle’s broader philosophical belief in teleology, the idea that all things have an inherent purpose or end. Just as the purpose of an acorn is to become an oak tree, the purpose of human beings, in Aristotle’s view, is to reach their full potential through virtuous living, which can only be achieved within the structure of a supportive, well-ordered state.

Moreover, Aristotle rejected the notion of absolute equality, advocating instead for a “distributive justice” system where people receive resources and honors according to their merit and ability to contribute to the common good. He believed that people are naturally unequal in their capacities and that a just state should reflect this diversity of skills and virtues by placing the most capable individuals in leadership positions. However, this does not imply a disregard for the welfare of the majority. On the contrary, Aristotle argued that the state should ensure a fair distribution of resources and opportunities to prevent excessive inequality, which he saw as destabilizing and antithetical to the state’s purpose of promoting the good life.

In contrast to modern liberal views, which often emphasize the protection of individual rights and the limitation of state interference, Aristotle’s view of the state is holistic and paternalistic. He did not consider individual rights as separate from the collective good; rather, he believed that true freedom and fulfillment are possible only when individuals act in accordance with virtue and contribute to the well-being of the community. This conception of the state places a significant moral responsibility on rulers to act in the interests of the people and to cultivate virtue through both example and policy.

According to Ernest Barker, the origin of political thought began with the ancient Greeks. In other words, Greek political thought is considered one of the oldest in the world. It had a profound influence on the political institutions of not only the ancient times but also of modern times. The simple reason for this is the rational mind, secular outlook and efficient management of city-states by the Greeks. These city-states, in fact, served as laboratories for experimenting with various institutions.

The social and political organization of Greek city-states resembled a common­wealth society wherein there was a great amount of mutual sharing of life and habitat. Religion had no impact on the lives of the people. The entire Greek community opined that state is a natural institution that came into existence for the moral and personal development of the individual.

The state was regarded as a means to an end. Man is regarded as an independent citizen of the self-governing society and there was perfect equality as well as opportunities and rights. Further, a number of Greek city-states practiced different forms of governments such as aristocracy, monarchy and democracy.

Greeks firmly believed in an ethical society. In their view, a city-state is not only a self-sufficient body, but also a self-governing body. A man’s life was expected to be ethical because the state was considered an ethical institution.

Human welfare was the primary objective. There was a great amount of emphasis on education in order to create an ideal state. Ancient Greek philosophers aimed at making a society wherein there was a greater cooperation between the people from different classes.

Some of the unique features of ancient Greek city-states are as follows:

1. The city-state was administered directly owing to its small territories,
2. The city-state was a church as well as a state,
3. The city-state was self-sufficient and self-governed, and citizens enjoyed freedom, and
4. The city-state was an educational, ethical and political body; there was active participation of the people in political activities, and there was greater harmony in the city-states.

Features of Greek Political Thought

Ancient Greek political thought has left a profound legacy on Western political philosophy and remains influential today. The Greek approach to politics combined philosophical inquiry with practical governance, examining the nature of justice, the role of the citizen, and the purpose of the state. Here are some of the main characteristics:

Human-Centric and Rational Approach

• Greek political thought emphasized human reason and rationality in understanding the world, including political and social structures. Thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed in using reason to discern the best forms of government and the nature of justice.
• This rational approach laid the foundation for critical inquiry and analysis of existing political systems.

Emphasis on the Polis (City-State)

• The Greek polis was more than a geographical area; it was the nucleus of political, social, and cultural life. The Greeks saw political participation as essential for human fulfillment.
• The concept of the polis encouraged direct democracy in cities like Athens, where citizens engaged actively in public affairs, making collective decisions for the community.

Ideas of Citizenship and Civic Virtue

• In Ancient Greece, particularly Athens, citizenship was an esteemed status. Citizens were expected to participate in governance and uphold civic responsibilities.
• Civic virtue was central, with a strong emphasis on citizens possessing qualities like courage, wisdom, and moderation, which were necessary for the polis to flourish.

The Search for Justice and the Ideal State

• Justice was a core theme. Thinkers like Plato explored justice in depth, with his work The Republic presenting a vision of an ideal state ruled by philosopher-kings.
• Plato’s philosophy suggested that the ideal state should be led by wise and knowledgeable leaders, with a social structure that promoted harmony and minimized social conflicts.

Classification of Governments and Analysis of Political Forms

• Aristotle, in Politics, classified governments into three types: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, and their corrupt forms: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. He analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of each, offering insights into governance and balance of power.
• This typology influenced later political thought and set a precedent for analyzing government structures in a systematic way.

Debates on Democracy and Oligarchy

• Athens’ direct democracy provided a practical example of citizen participation, but not all thinkers supported it. While some viewed democracy as the best safeguard of freedom, others saw it as prone to instability and mob rule.
• Plato and Aristotle were critical of democracy, favoring governance by an informed, virtuous elite over rule by the masses, whom they saw as potentially unwise or self-interested.

Ethics and Politics as Interconnected

• Greek thinkers often saw politics as an extension of ethics. Aristotle argued that the state exists to promote the “good life” for its citizens, and that politics is a moral practice aimed at achieving virtuous living.
• Political philosophy was thus intertwined with ethical inquiry, as the Greeks believed that a just society enables citizens to cultivate virtue.

Influence of Religion and Mythology

• While Greek political thought emphasized rationality, it was also influenced by religious beliefs and mythological narratives. Gods and fate were part of the cultural backdrop, impacting views on justice, power, and legitimacy.

Greeks had given great importance to law owing to their ability to think rationally. A number of Greek political thinkers opined that law is the dispassionate reason—objective and unbiased. They believed that law is essential for the promotion of the well- being of the citizen. As far as justice is concerned, Greek thinkers viewed justice as virtue in action.

They contended that justice enables a person to discharge his duties towards the development of human personality. Further, a city-state was considered ideal only if it was based on justice. According to thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, justice is nothing but willful obedience of laws of the state.

The notion of citizenship held today is not a continuation from the Greeks. There were, in fact, stark differences between the Greek notion of citizenship and that of the modern view. Citizenship is not mere payment of taxes, right to exercise vote or obedience to laws. It is a direct participation in the political affairs of the state, as the Greeks did not believe in representative system.

However, not all members of the society were given an opportunity to participate in the political affairs of the state. Slaves, minors, old—and in some city-states women—were not allowed to participate or did not have citizenship because it was widely believed that they could not discharge their duties towards the state.

Even working classes, both skilled and unskilled, were denied citizenship because they lacked leisure, and with this, reasoning and a speculative mind. The Greeks, therefore, restricted citizenship to only those privileged classes of the society who were free from economic insecurity and from other economic day-to- day problems.

The system of governance in the ancient Greek city-states was not uniform despite identical territorial limits and populations. Three important forms of governments were in practice in different city-states, viz., monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

Aristotle, the most celebrated ancient Greek political thinker, after examining nearly 158 constitutions, argued for a mixed constitution, taking the best of all the available forms of governance. Greeks never believed in democracy, as they never had faith in representative forms of government. Thus, their conception of government is symptom­atic of the class-based authority—aristocracy.

Thus, from the above points, it can be stated that Greeks have a great passion for reason, virtues and knowledge. They attached considerable significance to the discussions for reaching truth. The entire political enquiry was conducted through discussions and dialogues.

Methodologically, they may be viewed as the pioneers for the application of inductive and deductive approaches for the analysis of political phenomena. It is indisputable that the Greek thinkers have left an indelible mark on the intellectual tradition of the successive political philosophers of the medieval, modern and contemporary times in the West. With the above basic premises that guide the Greek political thought, let us study about the two most famous Greek political philosophers, viz., Plato and Aristotle, and their opinions.

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, is often called the Father of Political Science due to his substantial contributions to political theory, systematic observation, and empirical analysis in politics. His legacy in this field is rooted in his profound insights into the nature of human society, government structures, and civic responsibility. Aristotle’s works, especially his seminal text, “Politics,” represent some of the earliest formal attempts to study political systems systematically.

Aristotle’s Methodology and Systematic Approach to Political Science

Aristotle pioneered a scientific approach to political analysis. Unlike his teacher, Plato, who focused on ideal forms and abstract theories of justice and governance, Aristotle emphasized the empirical study of political systems. He conducted extensive research on existing city-states (particularly in ancient Greece) and sought to understand the practical workings of governments. By examining over 150 constitutions from various Greek city-states, Aristotle laid the groundwork for comparative political science.

This empirical approach was revolutionary for several reasons:

1. Systematic Classification of Governments: Aristotle classified governments into three main types based on the number of rulers and their objectives. These were monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by a few), and polity (rule by many). Each of these could be perverted into tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy if rulers sought personal gain rather than the common good. This classification is a cornerstone of political science, influencing future scholars in understanding governmental structures.

2. Analysis of Constitutions: His collection and study of various city-states’ constitutions allowed him to analyze how different political structures functioned and the causes of political stability and decay. Aristotle’s focus on constitutions also influenced the concept of constitutionalism, or the idea that a government’s authority is derived from a legal framework, a principle still foundational in modern political thought.

3. Objective and Normative Analysis: Aristotle distinguished between what is ideal and what is practically attainable. He sought a balance between normative (what should be) and descriptive (what is) approaches. For instance, he acknowledged that although a polity might ideally serve the common good, real-world dynamics often distort governance. This dual approach—analyzing the real while aspiring to the ideal—was essential to creating a scientific method in political studies.

The Concept of Man as a “Political Animal”

A cornerstone of Aristotle’s political thought is his statement that “man is by nature a political animal.” By this, Aristotle meant that humans are inherently social beings who find their highest fulfillment within a political community. He argued that individuals cannot achieve their potential in isolation; instead, they need to engage with others in a community with shared values, norms, and laws. This assertion laid the foundation for understanding human nature as intertwined with the social and political environment.

Aristotle observed that:

1. Social Structure Is Inherent to Humanity: Humans, according to Aristotle, are equipped with reason and speech, enabling them to communicate and deliberate about justice, virtue, and the common good. These attributes distinguish humans from other animals and make political organization a natural condition.

2. The Role of the Polis: For Aristotle, the polis (city-state) represented the ideal form of human community, where individuals could pursue a virtuous life. Unlike modern concepts of the nation-state, Aristotle’s polis was small enough to allow direct political participation and communal responsibility. His belief in the necessity of political engagement for a fulfilled life has influenced political theorists’ views on civic responsibility and participation.

Aristotle’s Views on Justice, Equality, and the Role of Law

Aristotle’s philosophy also explores the principles of justice and equality and the role of law in maintaining social order. In his view, a just government is one that prioritizes the common good over individual or factional interests. He makes a critical distinction between distributive justice (allocating resources according to merit) and corrective justice (restoring fairness when injustice occurs). These concepts have informed the ethical frameworks within which laws and policies are formulated even in contemporary politics.

1. Merit and Proportional Equality: Aristotle believed that equality does not mean absolute equality in all things; rather, it means proportional equality, where individuals receive benefits based on their contributions. This view challenges absolute egalitarianism, arguing instead for meritocracy. His insights still resonate in modern political debates about social equity and fairness.

2. Rule of Law: Aristotle championed the rule of law as essential for a stable and just society. He argued that laws represent reason free from passion and should govern rather than the arbitrary will of rulers. This advocacy for the rule of law has become a foundational principle in political science, influencing modern legal systems and democratic governance.

Ethical Foundations of Politics: Virtue and Happiness

Another significant aspect of Aristotle’s political philosophy is his belief that the purpose of the state is to foster the good life and facilitate human flourishing (eudaimonia). Unlike other philosophers who view politics merely as a means of controlling power, Aristotle saw politics as an extension of ethics, with the aim of cultivating virtue among citizens.

1. Virtue Ethics in Governance: Aristotle believed that a good political system should encourage citizens to live virtuously and seek happiness through moral and intellectual development. His concept of virtue ethics is integrated into his political philosophy, positing that politics should aim to develop virtues such as courage, wisdom, and temperance in individuals.

2. Role of Education: Aristotle viewed education as critical to achieving a virtuous society. By educating citizens in ethics, Aristotle believed that states could promote harmony and social cohesion. His emphasis on education in shaping responsible citizens resonates with modern political theories that focus on the importance of civic education in democratic societies.

Aristotle’s Legacy in Political Science

Aristotle’s influence on political science is evident in how his ideas have permeated various disciplines, including philosophy, ethics, sociology, and law. His methodologies and concepts served as a foundation for later thinkers, such as Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Montesquieu, who furthered political theory with insights into natural rights and social contracts. Aristotle’s emphasis on empirical observation, combined with a normative ethical framework, has made him a seminal figure in the development of political science as an academic discipline.

1. Comparative Politics: Aristotle’s comparative method laid the groundwork for comparative politics, a central field in political science that examines the structures, functions, and outcomes of different political systems.

2. Political Realism and Idealism: Aristotle’s balanced perspective—acknowledging the flaws in political systems while striving for ideal governance—has influenced realism and idealism in political theory. This duality continues to inform how scholars approach political analysis and the possibilities of reform.

3. Enduring Influence on Modern Democracy: Many principles that Aristotle promoted—such as the rule of law, civic virtue, and justice—are cornerstones of modern democratic systems. His classifications of government types influenced the constitutional design in Western democracies, where systems of checks and balances reflect his analysis of different forms of governance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Aristotle is revered as the Father of Political Science because he pioneered a systematic, empirical approach to understanding politics, and his work laid the intellectual foundations for the field. His classifications of government, concepts of justice and virtue, advocacy for the rule of law, and his view of humans as inherently political animals have provided enduring insights that continue to shape political thought. By blending empirical analysis with ethical considerations, Aristotle’s political philosophy is a lasting legacy that continues to inspire and inform political science, civic engagement, and governance around the world.

Plato reviewed the condition of the Greek city-states at that time. He observed that there were full of anarchy and tyranny in Athens. After his observation, he prepared the outline of an ‘ideal state’ to establish national strength, harmony prosperity, and unity among the people. Plato created his ideal state and discussed the relationship between man and the state. A good nation can develop good qualities in its citizens. The human soul is primarily composed of conscience, attitude, and appetite. He believed that this would create an ideal state and the country would move on the path of progress. The purpose of this Ideal State was actually to give direction to the nation and government of Greece. Plato’s ideal state has some important features, which are the highlight of this theory.

Features of Plato’s ideal state

1. Rule of the Philosopher King:- Plato’s state is ruled by the King, who is also a philosopher, who has the role of head of state. It is the rule of the philosopher-king. It is the rule of knowledge and wisdom. The Philosopher King is the embodiment of wisdom and knowledge.

2. State-Controlled Education System: A state-controlled education system can raise philosopher kings and establish them in a better position. It can also develop inherent qualities in every individual, and this was the ultimate objective of this education system. The state is an educational institution and training is essential in all government-controlled educational systems. The training will help in gaining higher knowledge as well as in state management. Higher education courses include science education, mathematics, astronomy, logic, etc. In the primary education system, the child’s body and mind are kept healthy by giving physical education and music education. To build an ideal, education system of Plato play an important role.

3. Communism of Wives and Property:  In Plato’s view, the philosopher king would not care about anything other than the national interest. The philosopher king can be free from family disputes and concentrate on the welfare of the state and gaining greater knowledge. Feminism and money communism only apply to the ruling class. They can personally dictate all of their actions without recourse.

4. Justice: The main idea of Plato’s ideal state is justice. In an ideal state, justice should be established at the highest place. The correctness of justice and the school of law is known only to the philosopher king. Promoting, spreading justice, and making every person aware of his duty represent the practice of the true wisdom of the Philosopher King. He will represent knowledge itself and maintain the unity and harmony of the country. Since the ideal state and justice are inseparable from each other, the king must implement its results. Justice means the duty of citizens and the duty of the person who is appointed to do his duty properly.

5. Functional Specialization-  According to Plato, there are three classes in the state. The first is the philosopher’s king or ruler, who would represent wisdom. Since they are experienced in politics, they will spend their time on the welfare of the country. The second class is the military. They are engaged in the security of the country by carrying out its military tasks. The third class is producers. People in the third category will naturally try to prevent hunger and engage in productive work. Plato believed that they could not rule. Therefore, when the philosopher-king organizes his work, then people of other classes will also be able to organize their work. This is called Plato’s system of division of labor or the principle of performance. While the ruling group was acknowledged as gold, the defenders were acknowledged as silver, and the producers were acknowledged as copper. Most importantly, these three classes should not interface with every class’s work.

6. Equality between men and women: Plato has given equal places to both men and women in his ideal state. In his opinion, the day women’s liberation or independence comes, it will be said that a real ideal state has been built. Keeping women in the corner of the house is like depriving half of the country of their right to vote. This type of system can not provide proper justice to every individual. So he introduced an equal education system for both men and women.

7. Control of art and literature:  According to the Platonic state, art and literature are under the control of the ruling class. There should be a way to prevent cheap, wrong ideas from reaching people. People need to read only literature that is morally sound and wise in its content.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PLATO’S IDEAL STATE

1. It is tyrannical.- Plato favors the absolute rule of the philosopher king. He believes that those alone who know make his rulers absolute and concentrate unlimited authority in their hands. The truth that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts is bound to reflect on the philosopher king. Degeneration of moral values among philosopher rulers will surely make them tyrants.

2. It ignores the law.- Plato’s ideal state is based on the basic premise of knowledge. He establishes the sovereignty of knowledge. But the problem with his theory of the ideal state is that he completely forgets about systems legal, administrative, and judicial, which are so strongly required to run a state. In his emphasis on knowledge, he completely ignores this and leaves it undefined.

3. It is utopian.- Plato’s ideal state is an ideal only. It is too idealistic to be practical. Plato is hardly a political thinker. He is a moralist, an idealist whose concept of the ideal state is entirely utopian. He imagines a ‘city of nowhere’. It is the dream city of Plato, which cannot exist on this Earth at least.

4. His communism is not practical.- The communism of property and families, which he expects his guardian’s class to practice, is not only unwanted but also impractical. It is against basic human psychology and therefore almost impossible to implement.

5. It restricts Human Growth.- Plato’s rigid division of labor restricts the personal growth of individuals by confining them to specific roles. This system discourages the development of diverse talents and interests, leading to a society where individuals are assign to a particular category roles that may not fully utilize their potential.

6. It is against Democratic Values.- The absolute and tyrannical rule of knowledge gives no space to liberty and equality. These values are virtually sacrificed for the sake of the dominance of knowledge and reason. Artisans and toiles, who constitute a large chunk of society, are completely neglected. So this view of the ideal state is completely opposed to democratic values.

Conclusion

There is hardly any doubt that Plato’s ideal state is a dream city and can be found in clouds only. Plato, who had learned from Socrates that beauty cannot exist without a beautiful thing, and like him, he too believed that the idea is real, had conceived this ideal state as only an ‘idea’. This was his idea of ‘good’. He knew about its instability and that is why he talked about his second-best state in his later writings like Statesman and Laws.

Property

Economic Activity in Political Analysis:

• Both Plato and Aristotle considered economic activity as significant for political analysis.
• They believed that economic activity should be subordinate to political goals because politics aimed at the good life in a multidimensional sense, while economic activity was concerned with acquiring a single good, wealth.

Aristotle’s Distinction in Acquisition of Wealth:

• Aristotle distinguished between two modes of wealth acquisition: natural and unnatural.
• Natural modes included activities like hunting, grazing, and husbandry, which were considered natural because they met individuals’ basic needs, and nature imposed limits on consumption.
• Barter was seen as an intermediate stage that allowed individuals to acquire what they needed for survival.

Aristotle’s View on Money and Retail Trade:

• Aristotle criticized the use of money, as it led to other forms of acquisition, particularly retail trade.
• He viewed retail trade negatively on moral grounds, as it had no limits on acquisition and was considered an illiberal occupation.
• Small businessmen, shopkeepers, and petty usurers were seen as corrupted by a desire for financial gain.

Aristotle’s Preference for Landed Property:

• Aristotle preferred landed property over trade and commerce as a means of acquiring wealth.
• He emphasized that the right amount of wealth, rather than excessive wealth, was important.
• Aristotle’s main focus was on leading a good and happy life, where material goods were necessary but not an end in themselves.

The Relationship Between Economic Activity and Good Life:

• Aristotle stressed that material goods were necessary for a good and happy life but considered happiness of the soul as infinitely superior.
• He highlighted the intimate link between pursuing bodily pleasures and a person’s ethical character.

Use-Value vs. Exchange Value:

• Aristotle recognized that in simpler societies, economic activity was directed towards use-value, benefiting the producer and their family.
• With increasing complexity and specialization, products began to have both use-value and exchange value.

Aristotle’s Consideration of Wealth Distribution:

• Aristotle paid attention to the character and distribution of wealth and its influence on political institutions.
• He saw extreme wealth inequality as a potential cause of revolutions.
• While defending private property, he believed in well-distributed wealth as a blessing for a state, promoting social stability and justice.

Aristotle’s Views on Slavery

Aristotle strongly believed and justified the institution of slavery. He opined slaves as the possession of the family or, in other words, was considered the property of the master or the family. He stated that slavery is natural and beneficial to both the masters as well as the slaves.

He was of the belief that the slaves have no reasoning power despite the ability to understand and follow their intellect. Therefore, according to Aristotle, natural slaves are those who understand reason but possess no reasoning ability.

The logic given by him was that those who were not virtuous were slaves and that it was possible to determine who is virtuous and who is not. He further stated that as there are inequalities with reference to their capabilities and capacities, all those who had higher capacities were called masters and the rest are slaves. He also categorically stated that slave belonged to the master and not vice versa.

Aristotle justified the institution of slavery on the fol­lowing grounds:

Natural

Slavery is a natural phenomenon. The superior would rule over the inferior just as the soul rules over the body and reason over appetite. In other words, people with superior reasoning powers would rule over those inferior in reasoning. The masters are stated to be physically and mentally strong than the slaves. So, this set-up naturally makes the former the master, and the latter the slave.

Necessary

Slaves are considered necessary because they provide leisure that was most essential for the welfare of the state. Aristotle stated that slavery benefited the slaves as well. Because by being a slave, he would be able to share the virtues of the master and elevate himself.

Expediency

Aristotle was of the opinion that slaves have sustained the Greek social and economic system, and they helped Greece against social disorder and chaos. He stated that slavery is a social necessity. It was complementary to the slaves as well as the masters and that it aids in perfection.

Aristotle approved slavery only under certain conditions, as follows:

1. Only those who were mentally deficient and virtuously not superior should be enslaved. Aristotle, however, never agreed to the enslavement of prisoners of war because victory in the war does not necessarily mean intellectual superiority of the victor or the mental deficiency of the vanquished. He was against the idea of slavery by force.
2. Aristotle insisted that masters must treat their slaves properly, and strongly propa­gated that cruel masters must be subjected to legal punishments.
3. He advocated the liberation of only those slaves whose conduct was good and who developed capacity for reasoning and virtue.
4. Slavery was essential for the all-round development but the master has no right to misuse his power. Slaves are only assistants but not subordinates.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery

1. Classification of individuals on the basis of capacities is wrong and Aristotle never provided any logical method to be adopted to classify individuals.
2. He rejected historical origin of slavery and justified it on philosophical rationalization.
3. His views on slavery reflect his conservatism and primitive outlook towards life.
4. His theory is highly prejudicial and contradictory to the human dignity and niceties of life. It is prejudicial, in the sense it presupposed that Greeks were fit to rule the world and they could not be enslaved even if they were defeated by the barbarians.

Education for Plato was one of the great things of life. Education was an attempt to touch the evil at its source, and reform the wrong ways of living as well as one’s outlook towards life. According to Barker, education is an attempt to cure a mental illness by a medicine.

The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once stated that the main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right objects. This explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the ramifications of his theory of education.

Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to establish a university or introduce a higher course or to speak of education as such. This empha­sis on education came to the forefront only due to the then prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against the practice of buying knowledge, which accord­ing to him was a heinous crime than buying meat and drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education system.

He held the view that without education, the individual would make no progress any more than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own loving remedy without giving up his luxurious mode of living. Therefore, Plato stated that education touches the evil at the grass root and changes the whole outlook on life.

It was through education that the principle of justice was properly maintained. Education was the positive measure for the operation of justice in the ideal state. Plato was convinced that the root of the vice lay chiefly in ignorance, and only by proper education can one be converted into a virtuous man.

The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban individualism, abolish incompe­tence and immaturity, and establish the rule of the efficient. Promotion of common good was the primary objective of platonic education.

Influence on Plato’s System of Education

Plato was greatly influenced by the Spartan system of education, though not completely. The education system in Athens was privately controlled unlike in Sparta where the education was state-controlled. The Spartan youth were induced to military spirit and the educational system was geared to this end.

However, the system lacked the literacy aspect. Intriguingly, many Spartans could neither read nor write. Therefore, it can be stated that the Spartan system did not produce any kind of intellectual potentials in man, which made Plato discard the Spartan education to an extent. The platonic system of education is, in fact, a blend of Athens and the organization of Sparta. This is because Plato believed in the integrated development of human personality.

State-controlled Education

Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men and women. He was of the opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily trained to fit into any particular class, viz., ruling, fighting or the producing class.

Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without any discrimination. Plato never stated out rightly that education system was geared to those who want to become rulers of the ideal state and this particular aspect attracted widespread criticism.

Plato’s Scheme of Education

Plato was of the opinion that education must begin at an early age. In order to make sure that children study well, Plato insisted that children be brought up in a hale and healthy environment and that the atmosphere implant ideas of truth and goodness. Plato believed that early education must be related to literature, as it would bring out the best of the soul. The study must be mostly related to story-telling and then go on to poetry.

Secondly, music and thirdly arts were the subjects of early education. Plato believed in regulation of necessary step towards conditioning the individual. For further conve­nience, Plato’s system of education can be broadly divided into two parts: elementary education and higher education.

Elementary Education

Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be predominantly physical education. In other words, every school must have a gymnasium and a playground in order to develop the physique and health of children and make them resistant to any disease.

Apart from this physical education, Plato also recommended music to bring about certain refinement in their character and lent grace and health to the soul and the body. Plato also prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history and science.

However, these subjects must be taught by smoothing them into verse and songs and must not be forced on children. This is because, according to Plato, knowledge acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore, he believed that education must not be forced, but should be made a sort of amusement as it would enable the teacher to understand the natural bent of mind of the child. Plato also emphasized on moral education.

Higher Education

According to Plato, a child must take an examination that would determine whether or not to pursue higher education at the age of 20. Those who failed in the examination were asked to take up activities in communities such as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like.

Those who passed the exam would receive another 10 years of education and training in body and mind. At this stage, apart from physical and mathematical sciences, subjects like arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and dialectics were taught. Again at the age of 30, students would take yet another examination, which served as an elimination test, much severe than the first test.

Those who did not succeed would become executive assistants, auxiliaries and military officers of the state. Plato stated that based on their capabilities, candidates would be assigned a particular field. Those who passed in the examination would receive another 5 year advanced education in dialectics in order to find out as to who was capable of freeing himself from sense perception.

The education system did not end here. Candidates had to study for another 15 years for practical experience in dialectics. Finally at the age of 50, those who withstood the hard and fast process of education were introduced to the ultimate task of governing their country and the fellow beings.

These kings were expected to spend most of the time in philosophical pursuits. Thus, after accomplishing perfection, the rulers would exercise power only in the best interests of the state. The ideal state would be realized and its people would be just, honest and happy.

Aristotle explained in great detail the theory of revolution. It is his study of nearly 158 constitutions that helped him understand the implications of revolutions on a politi­cal system. In his work, Politics, he discussed at length all about revolutions. Based on his study, Aristotle gave a scientific analysis and expert treatment to the subject of revolu­tions. He gave a very broad meaning to the term ‘revolution’ which meant two things to him.

Firstly, it implies any major or minor change in the constitution such as a change in monarchy or oligarchy and so on. Secondly, it implies a change in the ruling power even though it did not lead to a change in the government or the constitution. He further stated that a revolution could be either direct or indirect, thereby affecting a particular institution.

Causes of Revolution

According to Aristotle, the two categories of causes of revolution are general and par­ticular.

The following is a brief explanation of each of the causes of revolutions:

General Causes

According to Aristotle, revolutions take place when the political order fails to correspond to the distribution of property and hence tensions arise in the class structure, eventually leading to revolutions. Arguments over justice are at the heart of the revolution.

Generally speaking, the cause of revolution is a desire on the part of those who are devoid of virtue and who are motivated by an urge to possess property, which is in the name of their opponents. In other words, the cause of upheaval is inequality.

Aristotle listed certain general causes of revolutions that affect all types of govern­ments and states. They are: the mental state or feelings of those who revolt; the motive, which they desire to fulfill; the immediate source or occasion of revolutionary outburst.

The mental state is nothing but a desire for equality and it is a state of disequilibrium. Another clear objective of those rebel or revolt is to gain honour. Apart from these, Aristotle provided some more reasons, which are psychological as well as political in nature that lead to revolutions. As far as psychological factors are concerned.

They are as follows:

1. Profit means that the officers of the state try to make illicit gains at the expense of the individual or of the public. It puts the latter to an undeserved loss and creates a mood of discontent.

2. Rebellions occur when men are dishonored rightly or wrongly and when they see others obtaining honors that they do not deserve. If like-minded people join the movement when the government fails to redress their grievances.

3. Revolutions occur when insolence or disrespect is displayed by the other members. A revolutionary climate would be soon created, especially when the state officials become haughty, arrogant and drunk with power, or pay no attention to the genuine problems of the people.

This leads to a deep divide in the society, especially between the state and the people. Over a period of time, people’s complaints against corrupt officials increase which culminate into revolutions.

4. Fear is a genuine and a worst enemy of man and human institutions. It disturbs peace of mind and other emotions. Revolutions can occur either out of fear of punishment for a wrong actually committed or a fear of an expected wrong to be inflicted on the person who is afraid.

5. Contempt is closely related to revolution. This contempt can be towards rules, laws, political and economic situations, social and economic order. The contempt is also due to inequalities, injustices, lack of certain privileges and the like.

6. Finally, revolutions are also the result of imbalances in the disproportionate increase in the power of the state that creates a gap between the constitution and the society. In the end, the constitution reflects social realities, the balances of social and economic forces.

If this balance is disturbed, the constitution is shaken and it will either get modified or will perish. For instance, if the number of poor people increases, the polity may be destroyed. Similarly, if there are more numbers of rich in the government, it may lead to an oligarchical set-up. Thus, any sharp differences in the polity would result in revolutions.

As regards the political factors, issues such as elections intrigues, carelessness, neglect­ing small changes, growth in reputation and power of some office, or even balance of parties lead to deadlock and finally foreign influence.

A brief explanation of these factors is as follows:

1. Election maneuvering greatly disturbs people’s faith in the constitutional process. If they succeed, they prevent the constitution from functioning efficiently or else they create much more troubles. These election manipulations not only frustrate the public opinion, but also destroy virtue and good life and they generate new social issues such as corruption, bribery, nepotism, favoritism and the like.

2. The foundations of the state can be devastated due to carelessness or willful negli­gence leading to revolutions. If the rulers are careless while selecting the officials, anti-social elements would creep in and subvert the entire constitution. In such conditions, a trivial matter of just selecting suitable officials with little care proves to be the most fatal.

3. A statesman must never neglect any small issue relating to the governance. If decisions are made in haste without considering its implication such actions are likely to lead to an uproar. It is for this reason; Aristotle stated that a need for over­hauling the entire system actually comes when small changes are overlooked. He also warned leaders that appearances are deceptive and can create problems.

4. As regards the influence of the powerful neighbouring states, which have an impact on the constitution, especially when the constitution of the other nation happens to be of a different type.

Particular Causes

Apart from the general causes of revolution, Aristotle also gave certain specific causes in various types of states. For instance, in democracies, discontentment is bred by the demagogues who attack the rich either individually or col­lectively and build hatred among the people who become revengeful and violent and this situation leads to conflicts.

In oligarchies, revolutions occur when masses experience an unpleasant treatment by the officials resulting in dissensions within the governing class. Personal disputes may further the flames of fire and though imperceptible, changes in the class structure of society may invisibly alter the ethos.

Aristotle further believed that it is not necessary that oligarchy become democracy or vice versa, but they might change into a completely different system altogether. In aristocracies, revolutions occur when the circle of the rulers get narrowed down and become thinner and thinner. It is, in fact, the disequilibrium in the balance of the different elements or parts of the constitution that causes revolutions.

As far as the monarchies and the tyrannies are concerned, revo­lutions are caused by insolence, resentment of insults, fears, contempt, desire for fame, influence of neighbouring states, sexual offences and physical infirmities.

Methods to Prevent Revolutions

Aristotle in order to ensure that there are lesser chances of revolutions suggested the following methods to prevent them:

Aristotle called upon the kings to believe in one principle maxim that ‘prevention is better than cure’. He wanted the rulers to obey laws even in smallest matters. He believed that transgression, of even in small amounts, would sooner or later result in total disre­spect and violation. Further taking cue from the rulers, if people start breaking the laws, the entire social order would be at stake.

He strongly advised the rulers that they must believe that they can fool some people all the time, all the people for some time and not all the people all the time. In other words, people should not be taken for granted, and sooner or later they will explode with suddenness that might take the rulers by surprise.

He also stated that the rulers must provide due care to all those people in their domain. They should not discriminate between the officer and commoner, between governing and non-governing and the like. The principle of democratic equality must be followed.

Further, every citizen must be given a chance to express their opinions about the government and that the tenure of the officials must be short-term. By this method, oligarchies and aristocracies would not fall into the hands of the families.

As the internal feuds among the rulers would sap the energy and unity of a state, the ruler must be on constant vigil and keep all quarrels and seditions among rulers at a distance. No person or official should either be raised to the highest position or suddenly stunned. There has to be a balance.

Those who have acquired too much wealth or amassed great wealth must be ostracized or banished and no single society should be allowed to establish its dominance over the other. To achieve this, offices must be given to the opposite elements like the rich and the poor, in order to maintain a balance. Aristotle further stated that public offices must not be made lucrative. By doing this, the poor would not be attracted and the rich might occupy them without any additional advantage.

The poor then stick to their work and grow rich, and the rich would occupy offices without getting richer. Under these conditions, the poor would have satisfaction that they all have jobs, and the rich, on the other hand, would be satisfied that they occupied high positions.

Thus, democracy and aristocracy would be combined to pro­duce a stable polity. The retiring officer should hand over the charge of public funds to another in public, and the officers whose performance was good must be honoured.

He further stated that the rich should not be allowed to exhibit their riches as it rouses jealousies among others. Finally, a statesman interested in avoiding revolution must pre­vent extremes of poverty and wealth, as it is this condition that leads to conflicts. He must encourage colonization as an outlet for a dangerously congested population and he should foster and practice religion.

Secondly, Aristotle opined that quality ruler would never be able to stop revolutions. So to ensure this quality, rulers, must be first loyal to constitution, secondly, they should be competent, able and worthy and perform their duties, thirdly, they must have goodness and justice that is suitable to the nature of each constitution, if there is any lack of an able person to serve as the ruler, a combination of persons will also help to prevent revolutions.

Finally, Aristotle argues that a correct system of education is the most effective instrument for curbing the revolutionary instinct and preserves social order.

Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of justice. He believed that without communism there would be clash of ideas and interests between reason and appetite. Plato’s communism is based on the premise that property, family instincts and private interests would distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community.

He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not only to philosopher king, but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties. As property and family relationships seemed to be the main source of dissension in the society, Plato stated that neither of them must be given any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family and property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of ideal state.

Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a state is the most dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due to the widespread and frank opinions expressed by the Greeks that economic motives are very influential in determining political action and political affiliations.

Long before The Republic was written, Euripides had divided citizens into three classes, viz., the useless rich—who are always greedy for more, the poor—who have nothing and are devoured by envy, and finally the middle class—a strong body of men who saves the state.

An oligarchical state to a Greek meant a state governed by, and in the interest of the well-born whose pos­session of property was hereditary, while a democratic state was governed by and for the many who had neither hereditary birth nor property.

These economic differences were the key to the political institutions and it was no new idea, which the Greeks were following since ages. The cause for unrest that Plato was experiencing in Athens was mainly due to the troubles present since the days of Solon a statesman reforms in Athens.

This situation convinced Plato that wealth has a very pernicious effect on the government, but was dismayed at the fact that there was no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing the wealth itself To cure greed among the rulers, there is only one way and that was to deny them any right to call anything their own. Devotion to their civic duties admits no private rival.

The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money and the privilege of engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in reach­ing this conclusion. The main reason for Plato to emphasize on communism of property was to bring about greater degree of unity in the state.

Plato was equally vehement about the institution of marriage and opined that family affections directed towards a particular persons, as another potent rival to the state in competing for the loyalty of rulers.

He stated that anxiety for one’s children is a form of self-seeking more dangerous than the desire for property, and the training of children at homes as a poor preparation for the whole and sole devotion, which the state has the right to demand. Plato was, in fact, appalled by the casualness of human mating which according to him would not be tolerated in the breeding of any domestic animal.

The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and a more selective type of union. Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where her activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To this, Plato denied that the state serve half of its potential guardians.

Moreover, he was unable to see that there is anything in the natural capacity of women that corresponds to the Athenian practice, since many women were as well qualified as men to take part in political or even military duties.

The women of the guardian class will consequently share the work of the men, which makes it necessary that both shall receive the same education and strictly be free from domestic duties. Plato’s argument about breeding of domestic animals refers to the sexual relations between men and women.

It is not that he regarded sex casually, but he demanded an amount of self-control that has never been realized among any large populations. According to him, if the unity of the state has to be secured, property and family stand in the way, therefore, they both must be abolished.

Forms of Communism

Plato’s communism is of two forms, viz., the abolition of private property, which included house, land, money, etc., and the second, the abolition of family, through the abolition of these two, Plato attempted to create a new social order wherein the ruling class surrendered both family and private property and embraced a system of communism. This practice of communism is only meant for the ruling class and the guardian class.

However, Plato did not bind this principle on the third class, namely, the artisans. In other words, they were allowed to maintain property and family, but were under strict supervision so that they do not become either too rich or too poor. Though Plato structured the society in this manner, he never made any attempt to work out his plan that ensured such a system to function.

The following is a brief description of each form of communism:

1. Communism of Property

Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to the modern communism or socialism because there was no mention of socialization of the means of production. Plato’s approach was mainly concerned with one factor of produc­tion, that is, property that has to be socialized.

The land and its products were in the hands of the farmers. So, only the guardians were deprived of property. Plato deprived them of all valuables such as gold and silver, and were told that the diviner metal is within them, and therefore there is no need for any ornaments as it might pollute the divine thoughts.

The guardians were paid salaries just right enough for their maintenance. They were expected to dine at common tables and live in common barracks, which were always open. Thus, Plato’s communism was ascetic in character. Plato’s communism existed only for the governing class. Therefore, it was political communism and not economic communism.

2. Communism of Wives

Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of property, but also a private life or a family because family introduced an element of thine and mine. He believed that family would destroy a sense of cooperation that forms the basis for a state. To destroy family, it is important to destroy selfishness. Plato wanted the rulers of an ideal state not to get distracted from their work and get tempted towards self-interests.

Plato opined that family was the great stronghold of selfishness, and for this reason it has to be banned for the governing class. This situation brings about a question of ‘Did Plato deny his guardians class a normal sex life?’ For this, Plato stated that mating was encouraged between those who can in the best possible manner produce children of the desired quality.

Another question that was raised was related to those children who were born out of this union. According to Plato, they would be the property of the state. Immediately after their birth, they would be taken to a nursery and nursed and nurtured there. This method would make sure that no parent would have any affection upon one child, and thus love all the children as their own.

Further, the guardians, instead of caring for the welfare of their progeny, would thrive for the welfare of all. Thus, guardians of the state would constitute one great family wherein all children would be treated equal and common. Bound by common joys and sorrow, there is personal or exclusive relation to one family and in the process the entire state.

Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for begetting children. He stated that the proper age for begetting children women should be between the age of 20 and 40 and men between 25 and 55 because at this time, the physical and intellectual vigor is more. If anybody flouted the rules, they were treated as unholy and unrighteous beings.

Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political and psychological bases for the ideal state. Plato believed that such a communism of family would remove the conflict between the personal interests and the objectives of the state.

Life History of Aristotle

A great political philosopher, popularly known as father of political science, a genius, an influential disciple of Plato, a radicalist, a champion of inductive, analytical, scientific and teleological method, a great writer on mammoth works; politics-a treatise on the art of government, “On monarchy”, “On philosophy”, “On colonies”, a master mind, Aristotle was born at Stagira, a Greek Colony situated on the eastern coast of the Peninsula of Chalcidice in Thrace in 384 B.C.

His contribution is significant not only to Political Science but also to the field of education. He died in 322 B.C. in Chalcis in Euboea.

Among the works of Aristotle, ‘The Politics’ stands unique and superb. Aristotle’s Politics is not only a treatise on Political Science but on education also. Aristotle visualized an ideal state, the success of which is not to be weighed by its efficient administration, but by the sort of character it makes among its citizens.

Education acts as a potent agency to instill perennial qualities of mobility, generosity, discipline and a high moral character.

It is only through this medium that the triumph of the forces of goodness, beauty and justice can be secured over the forces of evil, ignorance and injustice. He has given a wide space to education in his Book VII and VIII of the “politics”.

Since education was the first and foremost necessity for an ideal state, his education was designed to cultivate moral, physical and intellectual excellence in its citizens to perform a host of civic functions.

Education makes them not only physically and mentally fit but also turn them into virtuous. One of the main functions of the state is the education of the citizen in virtue and not merely to restrain him from vice. Therefore, Aristotle wanted state-controlled and state-directed system of education to educate the citizens in the laws and constitution of the state.

The educational system is designed to make good citizens, brave soldiers and efficient administrators for the smooth sailing of the vessel of the government. Since the ideal state aims at achieving supreme good of the citizens, it is, thus, a necessity to educate them in a proper manner.

He, like Plato, insisted that the state should control and organise education, for the aim of education was to instruct the young in the spirit of the constitution of the state.

The education should not only be public but identical for all citizens. However, he confined his public, compulsory and uniform type of education to the citizens only, thus paved the way for creating a chasm between the citizen and non-citizen bodies in the state.

Aristotle’s views on Education

According to Aristotle, education means “the creation of a sound body in a sound mind.” He emphasized both body and mind to be developed fully and a sound body is meaningless without a sound mind, for sound body resides in sound mind.

He outlined the following purposes of education:

Aristotle’s Purposes of Education

(i) Since the aim of a good state is to create the best type of polity, the purpose of education, therefore, should be to produce the best type of citizens. The citizen should be moulded to suit the form of government under which he lives.

A citizen, according to him, is one who knows how to rule and be ruled and one who actively participates in the affairs of the state. It is the business of education to prepare a good ruler and an obedient and loyal subject. Therefore, the purpose of education is also to provide training in the art of citizenship.

(ii) Secondly, besides the above political purpose, education has also a social purpose. Man is a social animal and social instinct is implanted in all men, by nature. The state provides him with a system of education which helps its citizens in the fulfillment of their social and political nature.

Education makes him socialised by developing rationality which enables the individual to differentiate between right and wrong, justice and injustice.

(iii) Thirdly, the purpose of education in an ideal state is to make the life of citizens virtuous and happy. Education must teach man the virtue of the golden mean so that he may avoid the extreme doctrines and extreme practices, may learn what is toleration and friendship, may practice the principle of compromise and fellowship and above all may while holding his private property, share its enjoyment with others of his kind.”

(iv) Fourthly, again, the purpose of education is the establishment of peace and the enjoyment of leisure. Its aim is not the acquisition of aggressive military virtue as was practiced by the Lacedaemonians. He does not recommend that men should study war with a view to the enslavement of those who don’t deserve to be enslaved.

He suggests that legislators should direct all his military and other measures to the provision of leisure and the establishment of peace.

He says the end of individuals and that of state is same. In both, there exists the virtue of leisure which demands a good deal of supply of necessaries of life and after such a supply, it is essential to create intellectual virtue among citizens which can be possible only through the instrument of education. It is only through it that they can make the fullest use and enjoyment of their leisure.

Education, thus, serves manifold purposes. It makes him a noble, virtuous and ideal citizen to establish an ideal common wealth in which unity is maintained in-spite of a great diversity. It initiates him into the periphery of constitution which teaches him to be a law-abiding citizen.

It is a process of training in habit and character which helps him to secure the supremacy of reason, the presence of which leads him ultimately to the attainment of that highest goal of human existence which is the rational self-determination.

Aristotle’s Basic Principles of Education

Aristotle considered nature, habit and reason as the three cardinal things to make a man good and virtuous. Besides, these are pre-requisites for the harmonious development of personality. Education is the only means for the realization of this end.

As to the fundamental question of whether body is prior to soul or vice-versa, Aristotle argues that since body is prior in order of generation to the soul, and irrational is prior to the rational, therefore the education of the body must precede that of the soul.

The irrational side of human personality is represented by anger, will, desire and appetite which are implanted in children from their birth and the rational side of life is represented by reason which develops with age and experience. Therefore, in the logical scheme of education, the training of the appetite part must always precede the training of the soul.

Like Plato, his theory of education is also grounded in psychology. According to him, no theory of education is worth the name if it does not rest on a psychological basis. Education must include three stages of mental development-natural disposition, habitual temperament and rational self-determination stages.

The first stage has not captured the attention of education as it represents the period when the child is not yet born.

The second stage is the age of youth when habits are formed and the youth is swept by a torrent of desires and passions. Education should be so adjusted that the youth may have the opportunities to develop their proper habits and they may allow themselves to be dominated by rational desires only.

This will help them in the realization of rational self-determination in later life. When they are able to realize this, they can shoulder the responsibilities of life and citizenships. Education aims at preparing them to rationalise their habits and facilitating the supremacy of reason over irrational habits and desires. This is the true- nature of education at the third stage of mental development.

Aristotle’s Scheme of Education

Aristotle has divided his spectrum of education into three parts-the cradle stage, the primary stage and the Secondary Stage.

The Cradle Stage

It covers the education of first seven years in which children are to be properly fed and given proper muscular exercises in order to keep them always healthy and free from all kinds of diseases. He considered exercises, not hard exercises, are necessary to preserve their tender limbs from distortions and check their stunted growth.

To prevent their limbs from being inactive, they should be provided with some sort of amusement or music which should not be vulgar or riotous.

The Director of Education should be very careful to see that no vulgar tales or stories are presented to them. Besides, Aristotle says that children should be prevented from using or listening to any indecent speech because the light utterance of shameful words is akin to shameful actions.

Along with indecent speeches, indecent pictures should also be banished. Children are required to remain at home in the first seven years of infancy education. Up to the age of five, they should not learn but only play. During the two following years, they should be made to learn by doing things instead of reasoning about them.

The primary Stage

It covers a period of 7 years education which lasts from 7 to 14 years. Since body comes before the mind, Aristotle favoured light gymnastics exercises for achieving beauty, grace and symmetry of body and infusing courage among the boys. He mentioned reading, writing and drawing as essential for the manifold purposes of life in a variety of ways.

He writes, “Reading and writing are useful, because through them many other sorts of knowledge are required. The study of drawing is also extremely useful for our boys, because it makes them judges of the beauty of the human forms. It develops their aesthetic sense and makes them the lover of beauty.”

Besides, he considered music as an important component of education at this stage. It is essential for relaxation and providing necessary comfort to the tense conditions of human soul. It again necessary for the best utilization of leisure-use of music for intellectual enjoyment in leisure and making of good character.

The Secondary Stage

It lasts from 14 to 21 years. At this stage the mind of the youth should be prepared for receiving intellectual training which is necessary for a good citizen to live in the best polity. From to 17, the customary branches of education reading, writing, drawing, music, arithmetic and geometry should be studied with all care and seriousness.

From 17 to 21, the youths should be given military training. After the completion of this training they should be left to follow their vocations and to fashion their lives as good and noble citizens of the best state.

Aristotle, like Plato, supported state-controlled system of education. He, like Plato, insists at education should be one and the same for every citizen of the state.

In Book VII of his Polities’, he stated, “Since the whole city has one end, it is manifest that education should be one and the same for all, and that it should be public, and not private-not as at present, when ‘everyone looks after his own children separately, and gives them separate instruction of the sort which he thinks best; the training in things which are of common interest should be the same for all.”

Therefore, the ultimate function of state was pedagogic to make ideal citizens who would serve the state in a better manner. In fine, Aristotle wanted a system of uniform and compulsory public education in his best state.

Evaluation of Aristotle’s Theory of Education

His theory of education is sound as it aims at the harmonious development of personality. I educates all the three faculties-body, mind and soul.

Prof. W.A. Dunning in his master-piece ‘Political Theories-Ancient and Medieval’, (Vol. 1) writes, “It aims at mental culture rather than tactical utility, lays due stress upon the physical side of the training, and attaches to music a moral significance and a character-making influence that are quite incomprehensible to the modern mind.”

(i) Another notable part of his theory of education is that the role of right kind of stories, pictures and plays that shape the personality of children in an influencing manner.

(ii) Finally, he rightly believes that education should first be directed to the cultivation of the body, secondly to the control of appetites, i.e. character-training, and finally to the development of mind. This is highly appreciable to the modern educationists.

Notwithstanding of the merit of his theory of education, it is replete with defects.

(i) His scheme of education ends very abruptly and even at the age of 21 the youth is not very much intellectually developed. Thus, it is incomplete and inadequate for the purpose of ideal citizenship and intellectual development in an Ideal State.

(ii) Another demerit of his theory is that his education is meant only for the citizen body of the state. In stipulating such a condition he is guilty of creating a gulf between the citizen and non-citizen bodies in his best state.

In-spite of some defects, his concept of education is still recognised as the best one as it brings happiness among the ideal citizens in the state and it helps in the formation of character by instilling “virtues” in the children.

All the educationist in the firmament of globe have been laid prime importance on character-building as the sole aim of education. Further, modern democratic education is highly indebted to Aristotle, for it emphasises cultivation of citizenship qualities in the tender minds of children for ensuring an ideal state.